The Old Latin Version and the KJB Readings

[HankD]

I hope everyone is aware that my statement to A-A about being a heretic was tongue-in-cheek.

I am relatively sure he really doesn't believe the Apocrypha is the Word of God.

I should have used a smiley

Any way I apologise to both A-A and the Webmaster because that sort of thing is verbotten.

I'm sorry A-A and Webmaster.

However the question Will asked (in his own words) remains and I will ask him a question like his own and also A-A if he is willing.

If you believe that the First Edition of the KJB of 1611 is the Word of God why did the KJ Bible correctors remove it by the 1769 edition?

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I'm sorry A-A

No biggie

.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Your nasb, niv, esv, etc. all disagree with each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses, and they all depart from the Hebrew texts many times. They are false witnesses...
Will K

Absolutely, Robert Sargent showed his chart concerning 5 Greek texts that these modern versions derived from. They differ each other because of the 5 Greek texts disagreeing each other. Strangely, these 5 Greek texts are gone back to the W/H text. Awesome!

I can show you scores of such examples of how the modern versions pervert the true words of God and call it "scholarship".

Will, please do it!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Your nasb, niv, esv, etc. all disagree with each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses, and they all depart from the Hebrew texts many times. They are false witnesses and he who has eyes to see this obvious truth knows this to be the case.

All of them are our best understanding in translations. They don't disagree as much as they offer different points of view. The gospels also show the same comparison - different points of view, yet no disagreement. Just because you call a truth obvious does not make it so.
</font>

How would you understand these modern versions disagreeing each other?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Askjo:
All of them are our best understanding in translations. They don't disagree as much as they offer different points of view. The gospels also show the same comparison - different points of view, yet no disagreement. Just because you call a truth obvious does not make it so.
[/qb]

How would you understand these modern versions disagreeing each other? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Isn't that what I just wrote?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Archangel says: "The issue can be summed up in a single question: why is it that relatively well-attested Old Latin readings like Lk. 3:22 were rejected in the TR/KJV while other Old Latin readings with far worse attestation like "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 were accepted? Answer: because of the textual decisions of Erasmus."

Archy, several things are wrong with your assessment here. First of all, several Old Latin copies read just like the KJB in Luke 3:22. The Old Latin copies are few today and have been corrupted, but the KJB reading is amply supported.

But *most* Old Latin copies and sources don't. There's actually *more* Old Latin support for "this day I have begotten you" in Lk. 3:22 than for the TR/KJV reading. In fact, it could be said that TR/KJV reading is *not* supported by the Old Latin "majority text." So why is this Old Latin reading rejected when it has *far* better attestation in the Old Latin sources than some of the examples on your previous list, or the TR/KJV reading at Rev. 22:19? This seems rather inconsistent.

Secondly, and more importantly, your whole approach to the Scriptures is man centered and more akin to humanistic evolution that to the sovereignty of God.

God did not use only Erasmus, but also the texts of Stephanus and Beza, and He guided the KJB translators both as to the proper texts and the correct translation into the English text itself.

I'd characterize the differences between our approaches more like this: you begin with a pre-determined notion about what God *must* have done; I look at the facts to determine what God has *actually* done. You assign a kind of "papal infallibility" to Erasmus in his textual choices and to the KJV translators in their translational choices; I hold that every believer has "soul liberty" in the matter of textual and translational differences and is responsible before God for his textual and translational choices of the Biblical text just as he is responsible before God for his interpretation of the Biblical text. You seem to believe that every English-speaking person who had the misfortune to live before 1611 (1769?) didn't have the word of God in his own language; I believe that God has given His word to the English-speaking people in many different translations both before and after 1611.

I have a settled, unchangeable, inerrant Bible, and you have a mutitude of conflicting versions that continue to change from one edition to the next with no settled text. I believe in an inspired, complete, infallible Holy Bible I can hold in my hands and believe every word; you do not.

The KJV cannot be called "complete," since it demonstrably fails to convey many things found in the original language texts, and since it has demonstrably inferior translations in some places.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Archangel says: "The issue can be summed up in a single question: why is it that relatively well-attested Old Latin readings like Lk. 3:22 were rejected in the TR/KJV while other Old Latin readings with far worse attestation like "book of life" in Rev. 22:19 were accepted? Answer: because of the textual decisions of Erasmus."

Archy, several things are wrong with your assessment here. First of all, several Old Latin copies read just like the KJB in Luke 3:22. The Old Latin copies are few today and have been corrupted, but the KJB reading is amply supported.

But *most* Old Latin copies and sources don't read like the TR/KJV. There's actually *more* Old Latin support for "this day I have begotten you" in Lk. 3:22 than for the TR/KJV reading. In fact, it could be said that TR/KJV reading is *not* supported by the Old Latin "majority text." So why is this majority Old Latin reading rejected by the TR/KJV when it has *far* better attestation in the Old Latin sources than some of the examples on your previous list, or the TR/KJV reading at Rev. 22:19? This seems rather inconsistent.

Secondly, and more importantly, your whole approach to the Scriptures is man centered and more akin to humanistic evolution that to the sovereignty of God.

God did not use only Erasmus, but also the texts of Stephanus and Beza, and He guided the KJB translators both as to the proper texts and the correct translation into the English text itself.

I'd characterize the differences between our approaches more like this: you begin with a pre-determined notion about what God *must* have done; I look at the facts to determine what God has *actually* done. You assign a kind of "papal infallibility" to Erasmus in his textual choices and to the KJV translators in their translational choices; I hold that every believer has "soul liberty" in the matter of textual and translational differences and is responsible before God for his textual and translational choices concerning the Biblical text just as he is responsible before God for his interpretation of the Biblical text. You seem to believe that every English-speaking person who had the misfortune to live before 1611 (1769?) didn't have the word of God in his own language; I believe that God has given His word to the English-speaking people in many different translations both before and after 1611.

I have a settled, unchangeable, inerrant Bible, and you have a mutitude of conflicting versions that continue to change from one edition to the next with no settled text. I believe in an inspired, complete, infallible Holy Bible I can hold in my hands and believe every word; you do not.

The KJV cannot be called "complete," since it demonstrably fails to convey many things found in the original language texts, and since it has demonstrably inferior translations in some places.

 

[robycop3]

Same ole' Will, eh, Arch? Corner him by asking for evidence for his view, & he responds with his "you don't have any final authority" stuff. That's HIS way of saying, "I'm clueless."

BTW, have you read his excuses for the differing readings of Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7 when compared with Luke 4:16-21 in the KJV?

I believe he has a list of excuses for the differing KJV readings between Isaiah 53:7-9 & Acts 8:32-33. But that's all they are-excuses. I believe those Scriptures were known for just a few years before our time, and the readers simply accepted the fact that different versions were in use 2K years ago. Thus, we see no commentary from the AV translators addressing those readings.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi tinyTim, I appreciate your honesty.
Will K

posted December 29, 2003 01:26 AM                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have enough guts to admit this:
No one has a complete infallible bible, God seen fit to destroy the originals. If you have a problem with that talk to Him. We do have reliable english translations that give us God's message to humankind, but to say that they are inspired, infallible, or inerrant is a lie. They are merely a translation. God preserved his words in the varying manuscripts. That's why I carry a parallel Bible.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott says: ". I haven't heard or seen one non-KJVO answer that God's word is "out there somewhere." Would you care to reference a link for us, perhaps? We can easily show you what we believe, and have done so often. It means a great deal and has a lot of substance to it, but your blinders prevent you from seeing it."


Scott, your side says the correct words of God are "in the manuscripts". Well, this is a big-time help to us all. The mss. are all mixed up and contradict each other thousands of times, so what you so piously state is nothing of any substance at all. A lot of you guys like Daniel Wallace are still scraping off old shopping lists trying to find some underlying text that will give us a new reading.

What you believe is almost like saying the words of God are found in Webster's dictionary. Yes, they are, but in which order and which ones do we ignore? Your position is "they are out there somewhere" and that is why some need parallel bibles to be able to pick and choose which one they think might be the right words.

Any you guys think we are loopy!

Have a nice day.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Scott,

" Can you point to ONE (just one) Greek manuscript that is completely perfect and without error?
Somehow I doubt that. "


No Scott, I can't point to one Greek mss that is perfect. Thousands have already disappeared for ever, but I can tell you where you can get a perfect Holy Bible. It is called the Holy Bible, or sometimes referred to as the King James Bible.

You, on the other hand, have no perfect Bible or text at all, do you?

Will

 

[Will J. Kinney]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can show you scores of such examples of how the modern versions pervert the true words of God and call it "scholarship".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will, please do it!

Hi Askjo, if you care to see some examples of where the Niv, nasb depart from the Hebrew texts, and often not even in the same places, here is the first of two articles dealing with this.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

Then check out the second one, and you can also look at some of the other articles I have there showing the false doctrines taught in the modern versions.

Some have eyes to see it and some do not.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Your nasb, niv, esv, etc. all disagree with each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses, and they all depart from the Hebrew texts many times. They are false witnesses and he who has eyes to see this obvious truth knows this to be the case.
------------------------------------------------
How would you understand these modern versions disagreeing each other?


Askjo, it is readily apparent. Go to my site and start reading the articles on the Psalms, or Isaiah, or Job, or any number of the other articles. If you cannot see how radically different the versions are from one another, there is little hope you will progress very far in your spiritual understanding of this important issue of God's true words.

Will K

 

[robycop3]

Everyone, please notice that Will dodges the issues Archangel and others have brought up in this thread. Like the other Onlyists, he's all rhetoric and no substance.

KJVOs simply cannot truthfully answer basic questions concerning their myth without shooting it down, so they play the old switcheroo game & try to steer the conversation to other subjects.

Will, you've done a bang-up job showing everyone that the various BVs differ among themselves, & you readily admit that you cannot prove one right & the others wrong, but yet, you cling to that man-made false KJVO doctrine. Your articles are more a set of excuses and opinion than anything else. Just face it-you don't present any PROOF for the KJVO myth because there isn't any such proof to present. It's a dream.(Or a nightmare.)

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Everyone, please notice that Will dodges the issues Archangel and others have brought up in this thread. Like the other Onlyists, he's all rhetoric and no substance.

Uh,yeah.. Everytime I see your posts it's:


KJVO baloney

KJVO hooey.........

KJVO cannot........

KJVO are...........

KJVO BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.........


Tell me,when are you going to bring somthing to the discussion table??? Seems like you have nothing but innuendos and rhetoric..

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Everyone, please notice that Will dodges the issues Archangel and others have brought up in this thread. Like the other Onlyists, he's all rhetoric and no substance.

Uh,yeah.. Everytime I see your posts it's:


KJVO baloney

KJVO hooey.........

KJVO cannot........

KJVO are...........

KJVO BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.........


Tell me,when are you going to bring somthing to the discussion table??? Seems like you have nothing but innuendos and rhetoric.. </font>[/QUOTE]I see YOU haven't exactly lit up the board with too many nuggets of wisdom, and now, in another old KJVO ploy, you simply parrot the opposition.

What have I brought to the table? I've reminded you of the proof of the origins of modern KJVO, from Ben Wilkinson in 1930 to Ruckman and Riplinger today. I've reminded you that God has preserved His word in English AS HE CHOSE, proven by the undeniable fact that no two English BVs are alike, ante- or post-AV 1611. I've reminded you that there's absolutely NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth. I've pointed out some booboos in the "inerrant" KJV. And I've repeatedly asked you gents for PROOF for the assertions in your doctrine, and so far, the only answers I've gotten are similar to yours quoted above. This translates into, "I AM CLUELESS".

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

What have I brought to the table? I've reminded you of the proof of the origins of modern KJVO, from Ben Wilkinson in 1930 to Ruckman and Riplinger today.

I have shown you that believing that the KJB is perfect,and infallible goes back much farther.

I've reminded you that God has preserved His word in English AS HE CHOSE, proven by the undeniable fact that no two English BVs are alike, ante- or post-AV 1611

I have reminded you that ALL "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)from bogus Papal manuscripts conflict one another in THOUSANDS of places..

Look,ALL of 200+ Laodacean "bibles" and the Protestant Bibles cannot be God's word:"HOW LONG HALT YE BETWEEN TWPINIONS?"

. I've reminded you that there's absolutely NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth.

And I have posted scripture PROVING that God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him;God will not bless the new "bibles"! How do I know that? Because He has not YET.

I've pointed out some booboos in the "inerrant" KJV.

You have done no such thing.People have been trying that baloney for years,nothing positive yet.

And I've repeatedly asked you gents for PROOF for the assertions in your doctrine, and so far, the only answers I've gotten are similar to yours quoted above. This translates into, "I AM CLUELESS".

Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...


Again,you have brought nothing profitable to the table;just APING the opinion,and rhetoric of others that is as vile today as the day it was founded.....

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
God will not bless the new "bibles"! How do I know that? Because He has not YET.

I and millions of other people have gotten saved through reading these new "Bibles." Sounds like God has been blessing them to me.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi Scott,

" Can you point to ONE (just one) Greek manuscript that is completely perfect and without error?
Somehow I doubt that. "


No Scott, I can't point to one Greek mss that is perfect. Thousands have already disappeared for ever, but I can tell you where you can get a perfect Holy Bible. It is called the Holy Bible, or sometimes referred to as the King James Bible.

You, on the other hand, have no perfect Bible or text at all, do you?

Will

So what you are telling me is that there isn't a single inerrant copy in the Greek? If, as you say, there is no complete perfect Word of God found in the original language, then how can you be certain that the KJV is perfect. What is there to compare it to?

As I have said before, I believe that the original manuscripts were inspired by God. Internal and external evidence points to this. However, the fact that we do not have a single perfect Greek manuscript sure makes it seem that man has, throughout the years, made things "less perfect," because we are, indeed, given over to our sin nature. We make mistakes - we are human. It is a logically fallacious leap to move from not having a single perfect manuscript to the King James Version, moving from imperfect to perfect. We as scholars of the Word do our best to uncover what the original manuscripts look like, and we've found that some of what the KJV is based on comes from additions that were placed in there by well-meaning humans, but were still added on. You could very well believe that those scribes were diviniely guided to add certain things, but I don't see why God would have left out things in the originals. The facts show that the manuscripts slowly changed with age. I don't believe that they moved closer towards perfection, arriving in its perfect state in the KJV. Common sense, logic, and doctrine all point in the opposite way.

And it is something of great substance. Here is a follow-up question: Do you believe that the original texts were inspired by God and the "correct words of God." How do you know? How do you get from a level of perfection to 1500 years of imperfection back to perfection? Where in history did God mess up in his preservation of the Scriptures?

Okay, so there were a few questions. I really am interested to hear your answers, though.

And yes, many of us, do believe that you guys are a little loopy!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Already have;John 16:13,1st Corinthians 2:9-13...Give it a rest...

Hey, I use John 16:13 and I Corinthians 2:9-13 to prove that the modern versions are valid, too! The Spirit chose to lead me to the cross through a modern version, so that proves that! Maybe you're listening to the wrong spirit, perhaps? All I know is that I am a saved person now because of the gospel message that was written in the NIV! Glory to God!


Everything, from slavery to the acceptance of homosexuality, has been "proven" using those Scriptures. (just do a quick search on the internet to find that!) If that is all you have Scripturally, then you have not much at all.